Gilbert Mushure v NEC Transport Operating Industry

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/286/23
ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 19TH
SEPTEMBER 2023, 29 SEPTEMBER 2023
CASE NO. LC/H/130/23
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HELD AT HARARE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2023, 29 SEPTEMBER 2023

In the matter between

GILBERT MUSHURE

And

NEC TRANSPORT OPERATING INDUSTRTY

JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/286/23 CASE NO. LC/H/130/23

APPLICANT

RESPONDENT

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MAKAMURE JUDGE

FOR THE APPLICANT : IN PERSON

FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR S. HOKO (LEGAL PRACTITIONER)

MAKAMURE J

This is a purported application for condonation for late noting an application for review. It is opposed. I say “purported” for the following reason.

This Court in Judgment Number LC/H/144/22 handed down on 3rd June 2022 determined a matter between the parties. The applicant has not appealed that judgment to the Supreme

Court. Instead he has approached this Court for “review”. The application is opposed with counsel for the respondent arguing that not only does the Court lack jurisdiction to review its own judgment, but the application is frivolous and vexatious. Mr Hoko who appeared on behalf of the respondent submitted that the court having made its decision is now functus officio.I agree. I am grateful for the authorities cited by Mr Hoko.These include Madyauta v Madziva HH22/15; Uritrack(Pvt) Ltd V Telone (Pvt)Ltd SC10/18.

The applicant is adamant that the Court has jurisdiction in terms of Rule 20 of the rules of this Court. The applicant is not new to this Court having appeared in the matter which he thinks can be reviewed by this Court. He is well aware that Rules of this Court deal with matters which are referred from lower tribunals. Once a court has decided a matter it becomes functus officio. This means that it no  longer has jurisdiction over the matter.

In The Garrat Trust v Creative Credit (Pvt) Ltd SC 146/21 the Supreme Court stated that

once a court has determined a matter it has lost jurisdiction over such matter. What this means is that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present application.

What the applicant is doing is simply abusing the court process and the other party. Unfortunately, where a litigant insists that he must be heard and refuses to accept reality, sometimes the Court is forced to listen. However, apart from abusing the court process and his right to be heard the applicant has is also wasting his own time. He should approach the appropriate court for relief. The Court must impress upon the applicant that bringing unnecessary litigation to the courts is ill -advised. It is discouraged. He may have to seek legal advice in order for him to take the right course of action.

In view of the foregoing the following order is made.

It be and is hereby ordered that the application for condonation for late filing an application for review be and is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

CHIHAMBAKWE,MUTIZWA&PARTNERS , RESPONDENT’S LEGAL PRACTITIONERS